Irrelevant to the pointWhy was Paul not willing to do it without his permission?
necessity and compulsion are seen as contrary to freewill
Irrelevant to the pointWhy was Paul not willing to do it without his permission?
No its highly relevant.Irrelevant to the point
necessity and compulsion are seen as contrary to freewill
Which of course is impossible by definition of LFW.
Afraid notNo its highly relevant.
If by "necessity" you think this passage is referring to determinism, then Paul literally can determine him to do something and take away his libertarian free will, and so Paul is trying to avoid taking g away his libertarian free will.
Which of course is impossible by definition of LFW.
The passage proves to much for your view.
The common sense meaning is that he doesn't want him To do it out of a sense of obligation, do it joyfully.
This is anything but a slam dunk LFW passage.
BTW that claim is falseWhich of course is impossible by definition of LFW..
BTW that claim is false
LFW does not insist it cannot be taken away
If you are forced to do something that is something you have not freely doneAnd doing something without someone agreeing to it takes away their LFW? Of course not.
If philemon had taken the slave back on Paul's orders, it would it have been a free will choice?
Of course it still would be. So obviously the passage doesnt mean what you think.
It's not about LFW but about making choices because they are the right thing and it's what you want, rather than because a sense of forced duty or whatever. Either way you make a free will choice.
Check with Sketo
I took my meaning from the translations of Philemon 1:14 which shows necessity is contrary to free will
Even most everyone on your side would say you are wrong here.If you are forced to do something that is something you have not freely done
free will
[ˌfrē ˈwil]
NOUN
- the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
and you are still denying the translations
Paul clearly places free will in a position contrary to necessity or force or compulsion
So whatAnd the reference point in Philemon 1:14 is not God but other created things…
…therefore Calvinism has no problem with Philemon 1:14’s reference point.
I doubt thatEven most everyone on your side would say you are wrong here.
(ARV 2005) but without thy mind I would do nothing, that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(ASV-2014) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Anderson) but, without your consent, I was not willing to do any thing, that your good deed might not be as a matter of necessity, but one of free-will.
(ASV) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(FAA) but I did not want to do anything without your opinion, so that your good deed would not be as it were under compulsion, but of free will.
(GDBY_NT) but without your consent I did not wish to do anything; in order that your good might not be by constraint, but by the free will:
(GW) Yet, I didn't want to do anything without your consent. I want you to do this favor for me out of your own free will without feeling forced to do it.
(csb) But I didn't want to do anything without your consent, so that your good deed might not be out of obligation, but of your own free will.
(LEB) But apart from your consent, I wanted to do nothing, in order that your good deed might be not as according to necessity, but according to your own free will.
(MRC) but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness might not be by necessity, but of your own free will.
(MNT) But without your consent I was unwilling to do anything, so that your kindness to me might be of your own free will, and not of compulsion.
(NTVR) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(NWT) But without your consent I do not want to do anything, so that your good act may be, not as under compulsion, but of your own free will.
(Revised Standard ) but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will.
(RNT) but without your consent I am unwilling to do anything, so that your goodness may not be of necessity but of free will.
(RSV-CE) but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will.
(TLV) But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent, so that your goodness wouldn’t be by force but by free will.
(WEB) But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(WEB (R)) But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Wuest's) Georgia;;14-16 But I came to a decision in my heart to do nothing without your consent, in order that your goodness might not be as it were by compulsion but of your own free will. For perhaps on this account he was parted for a brief time in order that you might be possessing him fully and forever, no longer in the capacity of a slave, but above a slave, a brother , a beloved one, beloved most of all by me, how much more than that by you, both in his human relationship and in the Lord.
(NASB77) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness should not be as it were by compulsion, but of your own free will.
(NASB95) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.
(TEV) 14 However, I do not want to force you to help me; rather, I would like for you to do it of your own free will. So I will not do anything unless you agree.
(ERV) 14 but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(NHEB) 14 But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(TCE) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.
CT 14 but I would not do any thing without thy consent, that the benefit derived from thee might not be as it were forced, but of free will.NENT 14 but without thy: mind I wished to do nothing; that thy: goodness be not as of necessity, but of free will.
SLT 14 But without thy judgment I would do nothing; that good might not be as according to necessity, but according to free will.
(NEB) 14 But I would rather do nothing without your consent, so that your kindness may be a matter not of compulsion, but of your own free will.
(REB) 14 But I would rather do nothing without your consent, so that your kindness may be a matter not of compulsion, but of your own free will.
(EOB) 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent: your goodness should not be forced, but of free will.
They could have refused. They did what they wanted most given the constraints they had.
The soldier in that position that goes to war was not "determined" to go, at least not under the LFW view, I think you know that.
So when God threatens people with hell he is taking away their free will choice?I doubt that
and will rest on the scriptures where necessity compulsion , constraint are contrary to free will
BTW were someone forced I would deny he freely went
Complying when someone holds a gun to your head is not an excample of free will
but then the definition said as much
free will
[ˌfrē ˈwil]
NOUN
- the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
scripture and secular definition both agree
I doubt that
and will rest on the scriptures where necessity compulsion , constraint are contrary to free will
Threathens people with hell for doing what?So when God threatens people with hell he is taking away their free will choice?
That is exactly the same analogy as government threatening you at the point of a gun for military service.
Look, there are lines of argument that you use that are reasonble even if I disagree. This one isn't even reasonable. It's relying on a superficial semantic contrast that doesn't work At ALL when analyzed.
You keep confusing the pointAgain…
Then your reference point for “freedom” is not “God”… it's been moved somewhere else. Probably to just the simple fact that you're doing what you “want”… “voluntary”…
…and you “doing what you want” works perfectly fine in a Calvinistic worldview as well. God is determining ALL THINGS (Eph1:11)…
…Not just what you will do, but also the fact that you “want to do them” so "doing what you want ‘freely’", in the sense of just “acting upon your desires” has nothing at all to do with the actual discussion of (freedom from God) which is what matters.
You keep confusing the point
No one but you suggests free will means freedom from God
The Five Tenets of Soft Libertarianism
Ultimate responsibility (UR) Ultimate responsibility indicates the ultimate origin of decisions.
Agent causation (AC) A person is the source and origin of his choices.
Yet your definition uses the term “Ultimate responsibility” in reference to man not God.
Sorry man is ultimately responsible for his own sin not GodUltimate is a category reserved for God. You are not God.
Simply Change your definition to reflect your view…
God is Ultimately responsible. Man is “morally” responsible.
…
Lule 13 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had [a]mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perishThreathens people with hell for doing what?
Persons who do not believe in God or his word are not going to believe in such a threat
they probably won't believe in hell
In any case both scripture and secular definition agreed
I would also dare say man law would likewise
No ultimate resoponsibility in reference to their sin
God is not their sin
Sorry man is ultimately responsible for his own sin not God
You do not understand what a “miracle” is.
A “miracle” is not God interacting where he was not previously acting…A miracle is God acting different than he normally does.
It’s not like a “thing” called “nothing” existed separate from God then he decided to make something out of that separate “thing”.
---
No it’s not! This is a fabrication because you can not justify your assumption.
Something from nothing is illogical and is not a miracle.
God did not create something
nothing. God is not nothing. God is something. This is why it is illogical for there to be a disconnect from God.
Evolutionist teach that the universe and everything in it came from nothing. This is illogical and foolish. This is not the Christian teaching. God is not nothing.
Hebrews 1:2-3
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Colossians 1:16-17
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Acts 17:24-28
The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,
for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;
Something from nothing is illogical.
Something from God is logical.
You assuming that man is a “thing”, separate from God, that some new thing can come from is no different that the illogical view of Evolution. That is what is ridiculous.
You place man in the position of God and remove God from the equation by stating man can even create a thought out of himself. This is no different than the Evolutionist argument.
Without God you cease to exist. Without God you are nothing.
You are not God creating out of yourself something that did not previously exist… but this is the illogic of the “libertarian freewill” view.
“Libertarian freewill” argumentation is no different than the evolutionists argumentation.